NUNU SINGH Vs. MUNI NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been heard together. In both these applications, Nunu Singh is the petitioner. Nunu Singh, according to his allegations, had 'bakasht' lands in the 'patti' allotted to him by a civil Court partition to the extent of 18.09 acres. He subsequently acquired 1.58 acres of land in the same 'patti' which also became his 'bakasht'. There was apprehension that the tenants of the village might claim possession of the lands and get the matter referred to the Bakasht Board under the Bihar Bakasht Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (13 of 1947), and, in fact the tenants laid unfounded claims to the plaintiff's 'bakasht' lands in 1350 Fasli. The petitioner Nunu Singh executed a 'farzi' deed of commutation on 6-4-1948, in respect of his 'bakasht' lands in favour of his cousin, Muni Nath Singh, just to defeat the unfounded claims of the tenants. The dispute relating to 15 acres and odd (somewhere it is stated 16 acres and odd) of these 'bakasht' lands was referred to the Bakasht Board under the aforesaid Act, and the said dispute was fought in the name of Muni Nath Singh on the basis of settlement and commutation made with him. The tenants, however, succeeded as per award of the Bakasht Board dated 24-1-1950.

(2.) A title suit, being title suit No. 58 of 1950, was instituted by Muni Nath Singh "as plaintiff No. 1 and Nunu Singh as plaintiff No. 2 against the successful tenants in the Bakasht Board dispute as defendants in the Court of the Munsif at Barh on 15-6-1950. The alleged market-value of the suit lands was put at Rs. 2,000/-, and Rs. 100/-was claimed as mesne profits for the year 1357 Fasli. There was also a claim for future mesne profits. The suit was related to 15 acres and odd (or 16 acres and odd) which were the subject-matter of the award aforesaid in favour of the defendants of that suit. It appears that when the plaint was filed, the office reported that the suit lands above should be valued at the market rate. The relevant portion of the report was to the following effect:

(3.) The plaintiffs then stated that the valuation given in the plaint was the market-value of the property. Thereupon, the learned Munsif called for a further report from the office. The order sheet dated 1-7-1950, shows that the court-fee paid was reported by the Sarishtadar to be sufficient, and then the plaint was admitted. During the pendency of the suit, on 14-11-1950, plaintiff No. 1 Muni Nath Singh sold the entire 'bakasht' lands, measuring more than 19 acres, to certain persons for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. Those transferees were added as plaintiffs 3 to 9 of that suit. On 30-8-1951, plaintiff No. 2, the present petitioner, made an application for permission to withdraw from the suit, but this petition was rejected on 3-9-1951. The plaintiff unsuccessfully moved this Court, and it was observed by this Court that, in view of the fact that an application for transfer of this suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Patna, where another title suit, to which reference will be immediately made, was pending, the petitioner should move the Subordinate Judge. It so happened that the transfer petition was dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner filed another petition on 27-11-1951, for permission to withdraw from the suit, and that petition also was dismissed on 8-12-1951. The Civil Revision No. 95 of 1952 is directed against that order of the learned Munsif refusing permission to the petitioner to withdraw from the suit.